State v. Perez

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Perez

206 So. 3d 801, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 16669

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 9, 2016

DocketNo. 3D16-1921

StatusPublished

This text of 206 So. 3d 801 (State v. Perez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Perez, 206 So. 3d 801, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 16669 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

SUAREZ, C.J.

Because we find the trial judge should have disqualified himself, we grant the petition for writ of prohibition. We conclude that the motion for disqualification was legally sufficient, and that the trial judge’s comments were such that the facts alleged would place a reasonably prudent person in fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial. See Livingston v. State, 441 So.2d 1083, 1087 (Fla.1983). Once a basis for disqualification has been established, prohibition is both an appropriate and necessary remedy. Brown v. Rowe, 96 Fla. 289, 118 So. 9 (1928). Accordingly, the writ of prohibition must issue and we direct the trial judge to disqualify himself in all proceedings presently pending in lower court case number F09-30724B. We therefore grant the petition for writ of prohibition, but being confident that the trial judge will withdraw, we conclude that we need not formally issue the writ.

Petition granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUAREZ, C.J.

Because we find the trial judge should have disqualified himself, we grant the petition for writ of prohibition. We conclude that the motion for disqualification was legally sufficient, and that the trial judge’s comments were such that the facts alleged would place a reasonably prudent person in fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial. See Livingston v. State, 441 So.2d 1083, 1087 (Fla.1983). Once a basis for disqualification has been established, prohibition is both an appropriate and necessary remedy. Brown v. Rowe, 96 Fla. 289, 118 So. 9 (1928). Accordingly, the writ of prohibition must issue and we direct the trial judge to disqualify himself in all proceedings presently pending in lower court case number F09-30724B. We therefore grant the petition for writ of prohibition, but being confident that the trial judge will withdraw, we conclude that we need not formally issue the writ.

Petition granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 So. 3d 801, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 16669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-perez-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack